In mercury/autism debate, science and logic go out the window…

Jaiden.net reports: I think you could quite easily teach a class on the logical fallacies committed in the autism/mercury debate – fallacies committed quite equally on both sides.

Hopefully the result of this increased publicity is some decent research by those with the means to do it right (read: NIH). Maybe then we could finally get on with it (regardless of the outcome of said research).

For those who read Jaiden.net and are curious about my own thought. . .

Link to article
I think you could quite easily teach a class on the logical fallacies committed in the autism/mercury debate – fallacies committed quite equally on both sides.

Hopefully the result of this increased publicity is some decent research by those with the means to do it right (read: NIH). Maybe then we could finally get on with it (regardless of the outcome of said research).

For those who read Jaiden.net and are curious about my own thoughts on this matter, well, maybe I should write up something more substancial… but the short of is that I think the mercury/autism connection is biologically plausible (as the IOM said in 2003 – though their scope was limited to the mercury-laden vaccines of the 1990s [and early 2000s] – not the multitude of other mercury sources) but certainly not proven. Is there a corrupt collaboration between government and certain industries? Of course. But as far as I know, that is not news to anyone… What makes me grievously sad – but certainly not surprised – is that science and reason (logic) play only a small, irrelevant part in this play. It’s likely a jury that will make the final decision in this circus of pseudoscience… and that scares that crap out of me.